Environmentalism
and White Privilege
This past weekend I was fortunate enough to attend an especially
beautiful wedding. The experience was extraordinary for many reasons.
But one of them was that during the ceremony, as well as in the
toasts afterwards, no one only spoke about the couple and their
future life together. Instead the two of them were always thought of
as working together to preserve and enhance their environment. They
were gardening, taking care of a stand of trees, raising chickens.
Their future will be a future trying to protect and promote the
well-being of their natural environment. The relationship we
celebrated was not just the connection of two individuals but of two
individuals whose future life together will be committed to enhancing
the world in which they live.
These two young people did not think of themselves merely as two
individuals striving for happiness together. They thought of
themselves as responsible for their world and its protection and
improvement. It made me think about patriotism – so much in the
news lately. For many people patriotism consists of honoring our
soldiers in many foreign wars – even in wars, like the wars in
Vietnam and Iraq, which are generally considered terrible mistakes.
Perhaps we should think of patriotism instead as actively caring for
the part of the world in which we live rather than of honoring those
who have destroyed large parts of the world belonging to total
strangers – the people of Vietnam, Iraq and of Afghanistan.
Another thought that wedding brought up is the connection between
this different kind of patriotism, of love of the land and of our
obligation as its caretakers, and the racial differences that divide
us. White people tend to assume that obligations to care for our
natural environment are incumbent on all of us. All Americans who
profess to love their country are to express that love in caring for
our land. But white people rarely understand that for the last 150
years, ever since the end of Reconstruction in 1870 or so, we have
used many different subterfuges to take land away from
African-Americans, to make sure that they would be deprived of
whatever land they were working hard to own, to prevent them from
owning property and homes in most suburbs.
At the end of the Civil War, African Americans in the southern states
flourished. They ran for elected office and won. They governed well.
The South recovered from the ravages of the Civil War. Then, 10 years
after the end of the war, federal troops were removed from the South
and the whites instituted a regime of terror with beatings and
lynchings. Black elected officials surrendered their offices. Black
voters were intimidated and stayed away from the ballot box. Black
farmers were deprived of their land. The local government would claim
that they owed large amounts of taxes. The black farmers, often
unable to read and write, without the assistance of an attorney were
deprived of their land and turned into sharecroppers. When it came
time to assess how much the sharecropper had produced, more chicanery
kept the farmer in debt. They lost their land to unscrupulous whites.
Stealing from blacks was an accepted practice.
When African Americans moved north, they encountered the same
opposition to their acquiring a piece of land and a home of their
own. As early as the period before World War I a silent campaigns of
arson and vandalism kept African Americans out of "white"
suburbs. Banks and real estate groups developed the practice of
"redlining." Maps clearly indicated areas where black
people could own homes and live. Realtors would not sell property to
African-Americans outside those areas and banks refused mortgages.
Suburbs invented zoning ordinances which prevented black owners of
building lots from building their houses. Needless to say, the
ordinances applied scrupulously to African-Americans were not
enforced against white homeowners. The federal government contributed
to this concerted effort against blacks owning land and property. At
the end of World War II Congress passed generous legislation that
empowered the Federal Housing Authority (FHA) to give low cost
mortgages to veterans for buying homes in the new suburbs springing
up around the major cities. But these mortgages were for whites only.
African Americans did not need to apply. If they did they were turned
down. The fact that black Americans had fought as bravely as whites
in World War II counted for nothing.
As a result black families today, even if they earn good wages, own a
lot less property, have smaller savings and retirement funds than
whites. The extended campaign to deprive African-Americans of the
possibility of owning land and homes has been terribly successful. It
has not only perpetuated a major injustice against black Americans.
It has also contributed to the divisions among us. Even today few
white Americans have black neighbors; few black Americans live next
to whites.
One result of this geographic division of different parts of our
nation is that whites know very little about the history of violence
against Blacks, of the systematic theft of black property, and
exploitation of black labor. When athletes protest this long and
brutal history, whites do not understand because they have not seen
it with their own eyes. Had they lived next door to each other, there
would be fewer whites who are entirely clueless when it comes to the
life of black Americans in our country.
When young white couples marry, they can promise each other not only
to cherish the other person but also to be good stewards of their
land and the animals that live on it. But all of us whites should
promise each other and the black members of our nation to do whatever
they can to repair the injuries done to them by previous and present
generations of whites.
No comments:
Post a Comment